Revelations From The Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year Budget Request Briefings

 

"NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE" By Stew Magnuson, Editor In Chief

"Where officials from the Air Force, Navy and Army intend to spend what they called a “historic and once in a generation” $1.5 trillion budget so they will not have to make compromises between modernization and readiness. They can have it all."

________________________________________________________________________________ 

"The Defense Department in 2025 did not hold a big rollout for the fiscal year 2026 budget request.

This year marked a return to normalcy as the Pentagon’s acting comptroller and officials from the Air Force, Navy and Army all sat down with reporters in four separate briefings to explain where they intend to spend what they called a “historic and once in a generation” $1.5 trillion budget.

The headline: the unprecedented funding boost will allow the services to not have to make compromises between modernization and readiness. They can have it all.

The officials also noted that the budget was in the works long before the outset of Operation Epic Fury, and the war did not have any impact on the budget request. Any additional expenses would be included in a reconciliation bill. How much would be in that pot is still unknown, they said, but its passing would push the $1.5 trillion mark even higher.

Here are 10 other interesting tidbits from a day of press briefings.

• Boosting the defense industrial base was a reoccurring theme throughout the briefings. Part of that is delivering on the promise of multi-year orders. “We're going to give them a massive order, we're going to sustain it over time, and then we're going to have industry put forward the money to actually invest in their facilities,” said Jules Hurst III, performing the duties of the undersecretary of war-comptroller. The caveat is if industry fails to deliver on increased production, “there will be penalties for them,” he warned.

• Since prime contractor Lockheed Martin only has so much capacity to deliver F-35 jet fighters, the budget prioritizes purchases for U.S. forces. The number slated for foreign customers will be reduced. Those numbers are to be determined.

• The budget funds a study to look at the possibility of building a fifth public shipyard and to identify possible locations.

• The Marine Corps remains committed to buying the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle while the Army’s decision in 2025 to end its procurement stands, although it might procure a few for specialized missions such as counter-drone operations, service officials said. Ironic, since it was one of the few Army-led acquisition programs that pretty much came in on time and on budget.

• The Navy is already spending $837 million in the current budget cycle on research and development for the so-called Trump-class battleship, with a goal of beginning construction in 2028. The service is seeking an additional $3.9 billion in R&D and $43.5 billion over the next five years to build the first three ships. A Navy official pushed back on the narrative of it being a “Trump vanity project” and reiterated the talking point that the service had already identified the need for a ship larger than guided-missile destroyers.

• Two recent announcements came too late for the Department of the Air Force to factor them into budget documents. The first was the un-cancellation — again — of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, better known as the Warthog, which has seen action in Operation Epic Fury. Its success there bought the venerated airframe a reprieve until at least 2030. The Space Force also finally pulled the plug on the OCX program, the ground segment for the new generation of GPS satellites. After more than 15 years of development, it came to an ignoble end. What comes next for these two programs is to be determined, an official said.

• The Air Force's Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System is not a thing anymore. There is $13 million in the request for a new initiative called “Advanced Tanker Systems,” which will look at alternatives “to offer more options … and to make sure that our future advanced tanker systems are more resilient and can operate in contested environments,” a service official said.

• At long last, the Army’s two-decade quest to field a Bradley Fighting Vehicle replacement seems to be coming to an end, as the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle moves out of the research-and-development account and into procurement. The budget request has $547 million for the first 19 vehicles, along with the goal of procuring a total of 326 by 2031.

• Similar to the long journey to replace the Bradley, the end is in sight for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter replacement — formerly known as the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. Now known as MV-75 Cheyenne II, the Army budget request of $2.1 billion for the program calls for accelerated delivery of the aircraft with a goal of equipping the first unit by 2030.

• The overall Defense Department briefing touted big investments in the Golden Dome missile defense shield. But details on how much was being spent by the individual services — particularly the Space Force and Air Force contributions — were not forthcoming, with all budget questions being referred to Golden Dome Director Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein. Missile Defense Agency budget briefings have been held in years’ past, but not this one."

Top 10 Interesting Revelations from the Pentagon’s 2027 Fiscal Year Budget Request Briefings

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Stew Magnuson is the Editor in Chief of National Defense Magazine

The Citizen and the Citizen Military – What Lies Ahead?

Military pay raises have been minimal, recruiting has been a challenge in the services. How do we acquire, train and retain what we need? Reserves and National Guard involve long term multiple deployments with no assurance of a future for those who return. 

What is the mix of technology and manpower required to fight today’s wars? The following are 3 perspectives from experts: Can YOU answer the Citizen's Question at the end of this article?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

PERSPECTIVE 1 – From a Military Man

Mark Seip a senior Navy fellow at the Atlantic Council recently noted the cultural and conception gap that exists between America and it volunteer armed forces:

“From the military side, many of us feel that we are unique to our generation in our calling; that we rose above the self-absorbed stereotype often associated with both Gen Xers and Millennials to protect our nation. We accept significant time away from our families, often subpar working conditions compared to our civilian counterparts, and average pay in relation to the skills we possess in order to wear the uniform. Moreover, as our nation’s warrior corps we assume a level of risk since time immemorial, that our occupation entails a distinct possibility of loss of life. Our service therefore requires a level of confidence and self-assurance to do our jobs and take the risks required.

Second, the widening gap is a function of exposure, both in numbers and in proximity. As Fallows points out, 2.5 million served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. To provide context, according to an NPR study 8.7 million served in some capacity in Vietnam. Furthermore, during Vietnam the majority of the generation at that time had fathers and mothers who served in some capacity either in WWII, Korea or both. Today, however, the actual number and/or the tangential family tie to the military is lower, reinforcing the distance between those in service and the rest of the nation.”

The Military/Civilian Gap 

PERSPECTIVE 2 - From a Military Contractor

Eric Prince, the former CEO of Black Water continues to insist that private security employees working for the U.S. government in warzones should be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, instead of the civilian criminal justice system.

"It’s quite different for a jury that is 7,000 miles away from the warzone, looking at a split-second decision made seven years earlier in a warzone, minutes after a large car bomb goes off." Prince said he hopes the guards' convictions can be successfully appealed. "The last chapter is not written yet."

Although he quit the business, Prince still sees a future for the private security business.

"The world is a much more dangerous place, there is more radicalism, more countries that are melting down or approaching that state." At the same time, the Pentagon is under growing pressure to cut spending and the cost of the all-volunteer force keeps rising, Prince said.

"The U.S. military has mastered the most expensive way to wage war, with a heavy expensive footprint." Over the long run, the military might have to rely more on contractors, as it will become tougher to recruit service members. Prince cited recent statistics that 70 percent of the eligible population of prospective troops is unsuitable to serve in the military for various reasons such as obesity, lack of a high school education, drug use, criminal records or even excessive tattoos. In some cases, Prince said, it might make more sense to hire contractors.”

 Eric Prince on Future Wars

PERSPECTIVE 3 – From a Military Analyst

“DEFENSE ONE” Notes:

“The film “American Sniper” about legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle broke box office records this holiday season when the picture earned a million dollars in five days on only a handful of screens. It is time we grappled with America’s actual wars and their real-time, life and death consequences, once again with as much dedication as we line up to watch them play out on the big screen.

The military [has been] fighting a war. Or wars. But we, as a country, have not. In USA Today's list of its most read articles of 2014, neither the war in Afghanistan nor the simmering fight in Iraq – to which U.S. troops [were] headed back – cleared the top 10. The same was true for Yahoo's List of its most searched stories. No Iraq or Afghanistan in sight.

It is nearly inconceivable but somehow true that in the 2013 government shutdown, death benefits for the families of those killed in action fighting for the United States also shut off.” 

Shutdown Prevents Death Benefits for Families of 4 Fallen Soldiers

Citizen's question: Could or should we reinstate the draft?

Does The U.S. Keep Having Wars Just To Keep Its Military Industry In Demand?

The defense industry in America has utilized the threat of war and self-fulfilling prophesies to promote engagements by our country in several countries in the last 65 years.

From Vietnam to the Balkans, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Ukraine to Gaza and now Venezuela, many of the largest defense companies have paid more in lobbying costs each year than they pay in taxes.

____________________________________________________________________________________

There have been two major factors in the threat approach:

1. The motives of the U.S. and International Military Industrial Complexes, USAID and other western USAID counterparts

This has fostered continued warfare, netting billions in sales of weapons to the war fighters and massive construction and redevelopment dollars for international companies who often operated fraudulently and fostered waste, looting and lack of funds control.

It is common knowledge that many of these corporations pass exorbitant overhead and executive pay cost on to the tax payer in sales, thus financing their operating personnel riches while remaining marginally profitable to their stockholders. I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. Here is my dissertation on that subject. You can read it free on line at:

Odyssey of Armaments | Ken Larson - Academia.edu

Here is an example of how the lobbying and behind the scenes string pulling worked:

CorpWatch : US: Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

2. The complete lack of cultural understanding between U.S. and Western decision makers and the middle east cultures they were trying to "Assist" by nation building

The only real understanding that existed during the period was in the person of General Schwarzkopf who spent much of his youth in the Middle East with his father who was an ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was fascinated by the Arab culture, commended their respect and like Eisenhower led a coalition during the Gulf War. He then astutely recommend no occupation of Iraq, went home and stayed out of government.

Norman, like Ike, knew the power of the MIC and he wanted no part of it.

The U.S Tax payer has funded billions in USAID and construction projects in Iraq and wasted the money due to a lack of cultural understanding, fraud and abuse. Here is a recent factual summary by the Special Inspector General For Afghanistan Reconstruction:

‘We Will Do This Again,’ Afghanistan IG Warned In 2021 Of Future Drawn-Out Wars

There is history repeating itself here - the above two factors are deeply at play with the lack of astute learning in our government as we look back over our shoulder. We must come to the understanding, like a recent highly respected war veteran and West Point Instructor has; that military victory is dead. “Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish."

‘Modern War Institute at West Point - Military Victory Is Dead

Frank Spinney is an expert on the MIC. He spent the same time I did on the inside of the Pentagon while I worked Industry. You may find his interviews informative.

Bill Moyer's Journal

Time To Retire The Phrase ‘Military Industrial Complex’

 

“RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT” By Dan Grazier

“President Dwight Eisenhower coined this immortal phrase during his January 17, 1961 farewell address to warn Americans. “Sorry Ike: it’s a bit too dated and no longer the right moniker to describe what we’re up against.

The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real.  When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

“It is time to retire the phrase “military-industrial complex.”

President Dwight Eisenhower coined this immortal phrase during his January 17, 1961 farewell address to warn Americans against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” by the conjunction of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”

As a five-star general, Ike knew, perhaps better than anyone, the self-serving and mutually beneficial relationship between the defense industry and the military. But he neglected to mention Congress’s role in the arrangement, nor could he necessarily have foreseen the ways in which corporate interests would intertwine themselves with the various bureaucracies that keep the Pentagon’s coffers flowing.

While the phrase “military-industrial-congressional-information complex” would be more accurate, it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. And like Eisenhower’s snappier appellation, it still suggests an element of conspiracy. But, of course, none of this is theoretical.

The Pentagon, Congress, the defense industry, think tanks, lobbyists, and industry-sponsored media outlets are all very real. When combined, they make up what is better termed the “National Security Establishment,” which Americans see in action all the time.

We see it when a retired general goes on television to explain exactly how the Ukrainian army can defeat the Russians — but only if Congress passes the latest billion-dollar aid package. No mention is made of the rather relevant fact that the general’s think tank is funded by defense contractors who stand to benefit from the aid package he is calling for.

We see it when another general retires from his post as the head of his service branch and turns up six months later on the board of a major defense contractor. Coincidentally, it’s the same defense contractor that celebrated a year earlier when that general announced the company had won the $21.4 billion contract to build a fleet of bombers.

We see it when a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee proposes the U.S. spend 5% of the gross domestic product every year on the military — a $55 billion increase to the current Pentagon budget. Predictably, he fails to mention that the majority of this money would go to defense contracts awarded to the same organizations that have given him more than $530,000 in campaign money since 2019. He fails to acknowledge how flush Pentagon budgets over the past 25 years created the sorry state of the military today.

We even see it when we least expect to, as when the country’s largest defense contractor runs advertisements during the Oscars and posts an interactive map on the company’s website touting the economic benefits of a weapon program. The company wants everyone to know how many jobs could be lost if Congress votes to disrupt the program in any way.

The American people also see the impact of these actions by the National Security Establishment.

We see tens of billions spent on a fighter jet that can only be reliably ready for combat a third of the time. We also see more than $60 billion spent designing and building warships that were so flawed Navy officials apparently can’t get rid of them fast enough. The Navy decommissioned one of these ships less than 5 years after its commissioning ceremony, roughly two decades ahead of the ship’s planned lifespan.

Starting in 2003, the Army spent at least $8 billion, and some sources say the better part of $20 billion, developing the Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles to replace Cold War-era tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery vehicles. The Pentagon then canceled the program in 2009 with little to show for the effort and expense.

There are plenty of other examples of failed acquisition efforts from the past 25 years which partially explain why annual defense spending is now a whopping 48% higher than it was in 2000. Compounding these efforts is the Pentagon’s reliance on contractors to perform many roles once performed by uniformed service members at a much lower financial rate. The Department of Defense itself analyzed one case where hiring a group of contractors cost 316% more than the government employees tasked with similar work.

In a city where partisanship and political rancor impacts nearly every debate, wasteful and ineffective defense policies are a conspicuous exception. That is because the National Security Establishment is party-agnostic. Military contractors donate money to candidates and lobbyists on both sides of the aisle, those candidates vote for Pentagon budget increases and fund weapons programs long after their failures are widely known, and lobbyists and corporate-sponsored media groups generate public support for those programs.

Without massive structural changes, this pattern is all but certain to continue into future generations. Today’s National Security Establishment has launched several major weapons programs in recent years that, if allowed to continue on their current trajectories, will drive the annual Pentagon budget to truly unprecedented levels.

As programs like the B-21, Constellation-class frigate, Next Generation Air Dominance fighter jet, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, several ground vehicle programs, the Sentinel nuclear missile, and myriad space and cyber systems mature and enter full-rate production in the coming decades, the Pentagon budget will expand to cover the costs.

But this doesn’t have to be the case, if Congress actually does its oversight job. Several of these programs are already behind schedule and over budget. Costs for the Sentinel missile program have increased 81% to $140.9 billion from the original $77.7 billion estimate and it will still be several years before the first missile is installed in its silo. Yet, given the massive financial influence, even these egregious failures are all but glossed over, a simple footnote for most, and then prepared for a rubber stamp.

The services and their bureaucracies, the defense industry, members of Congress, and the paid mouthpieces promoting their interests in the media and during lobbying visits all comprise the all-too-real National Security Establishment. Identifying this network is the first step to avoid saddling future generations with the crushing debt associated with unsustainable U.S. military policies today.

While it is long-past time to update the name, Eisenhower’s warning is still more real than ever. Americans must remain vigilant and guard against the self-serving nature of this apparatus that is more intent on lining its own pockets than it is actually keeping Americans and our allies safe.”

Time To Retire The Phrase ‘Military Industrial Complex’

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. His assignments in uniform included tours with 2nd Tank Battalion in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and 1st Tank Battalion in Twentynine Palms, California.

A Citizen's Guide to Critique The Pentagon

PLEASE CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Ask yourself if there are not other alternatives for the future of our country, to include statesmanship, and international economic cooperation to cease warfare and weaponizing efforts among great nations. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

We offer not only our opinion on the massive Military Industrial Complex, but also the opinions of three experts who have lived war fighting - on the recent fields of battle, and in weapons systems development.

The quotations are extracts from larger articles. We suggest the reader follow the links after each to become further informed. 

It is our hope that the facts offered here will contribute to the knowledge of US citizenry regarding hard decisions forthcoming on the nature of war fighting and its role in the future of our country.

OUR VIEW

Our view is expressed in the below article, an extract of which reads:

“Presidents, Congressmen, Cabinet Members and Appointees project a knowledgeable demeanor but they are spouting what they are told by career people who never go away and who train their replacements carefully. These are military and civil servants with enormous collective power, armed with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Defense Industrial Security Manuals, compartmentalized classification structures and "Rice Bowls" which are never mixed.

Our society has slowly given this power structure its momentum which is constant and extraordinarily tough to bend. The cost to the average American is exorbitant in terms of real dollars and bad decisions. Every major power structure member in the Pentagon's many Washington Offices and Field locations in the US and Overseas has a counterpart in Defense Industry Corporate America. That collective body has undergone major consolidation in the last 20 years. What used to be a broad base of competitive firms is now a few huge monoliths, such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing, with neat stacks of exclusive, dedicated subcontractors under each. The stacked pricing load of these arrangements is enormously expensive.

Government oversight committees are carefully stroked. Men like Sam Nunn and others who were around for years in military and policy oversight roles have been cajoled, given into on occasion but kept in the dark about the real status of things until it is too late to do anything but what the establishment wants. This still continues - with increasing high technology and potential for abuse.”

What The American Public Must Know About The Pentagon

A FELLOW VETERAN’S VIEW

Paul Riedner

Paul Riedner is a graduate of the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management. and personally, sacrificed four years in support of war effort -- one deployed as an army engineer diver.

“There remain countless inner struggles that lurk in dark corners of my psyche. They are difficult to measure or even explain.

What does it mean to have been a part of this war?

To have been a part of: 4,500 American deaths; 33,000 Americans wounded; estimates as high as 600,000 Iraqi deaths; more than $1 trillion in taxpayer money spent; $9 billion lost or unaccounted for; huge corporate profiteering; a prisoner-abuse scandal; a torture record worthy of the Hague; a hand in the financial crisis, and runaway unemployment when we get home.

I've learned that we are easily duped and that we quickly forget. Saddam has WMDs. No, we are exporting democracy. No, we are protecting human rights, and by the way, their oil will pay for it all.

I've learned that 9/11 was used against us. We gladly handed over our civil liberties in the name of security. And recently our Congress quietly reapproved the unconstitutional Patriot Act.”

Among Iraq war's many losses: Trust

AN OFFICER’S VIEW

Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel L. Davis

Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel L. Davis was on active duty in the United States Army, serving as a Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch when he wrote this article. He had just completed his fourth combat deployment. (Desert Storm, Afghanistan in 2005-06, Iraq in 2008-09, and Afghanistan again in 2010-11). In the middle of his career he served eight years in the US Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs, one of which was an aide for US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Legislative Correspondent for Defense and Foreign Affairs).

From “Dereliction of Duty II

Senior Military Leaders’ Loss of Integrity Wounds Afghan War Effort 27 January 2012”

“We have lavished praise a few of our senior military leaders for being “warrior-scholars” whose intellectualism exceeds those of most wearing the uniform. But what organization in the world today – whether an international terrorist organization or virtually every major company on the globe – needs physical territory on which to plan “future 9/11 attacks”? Most are well acquainted with the on-line and interconnected nature of numerous global movements. We here in the United States know video conferencing, skyping, emailing, texting, twittering, Facebooking, and virtually an almost limitless number of similar technologies.

And a few men have convinced virtually the entire Western world that we must stay on the ground in one relatively postage-stamp sized country – even beyond a decade and a half – to prevent “another 9/11” from being planned, as though the rest of the world’s geography somehow doesn’t matter, and more critically, that while the rest of the world does its planning on computers and other electronic means, al-Qaeda must be capable only of making such plans on the ground, and only on the ground in Afghanistan.

When one considers what these few leaders have asked us to believe in light of the facts pointed out above, the paucity of logic in their argument becomes evident. What has been present in most of those arguments, however, has been emotionally evocative words designed to play strongly on American patriotism: “…this is where 9/11 was born!” “these young men did not die in vain” “this is a tough fight” etc. It is time – beyond time – for the evidence and facts to be considered in their comprehensive whole in a candid and honest public forum before we spend another man or woman’s life or limbs in Afghanistan."

Dereliction of Duty Report

A PENTAGON DEFENSE ANALYST’S VIEW

Franklin C. "Chuck  " Spinney

Franklin C. "Chuck  " Spinney Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (better-known by its former name, Systems Analysis, set up to make independent evaluations of Pentagon Policy)

Author - "Defense Facts of Life: The Plans-Reality Mismatch", which sharply criticized defense budgeting, arguing that the defense bureaucracy uses unrealistic assumptions to buy in to unsustainable programs, and explaining how the pursuit of complex technology produced expensive, scarce and inefficient weapons. Spinney spent his career refining and expanding this analysis. The report was largely ignored despite a growing reform movement, whose goal was to reduce military budget increases from 7% to 5% after inflation. Two years later, he expounded on his first report, including an analysis on the miscalculation of the burden costs of a majority of the weapon systems and re-titled it "Defense facts of life: The Plans/Reality Mismatch", which later became simply known as the "Spinney Report":

“And that's why we ought to treat the defense industry as a public sector; and if we did that then you wouldn't see these gross disparities in salaries creeping in. But essentially if you try to understand what's going on in the Pentagon and this is the most important aspect, and it gets at the heart of our democracy. Is that we have an accounting system that is unauditable. Even by the generous auditing requirements of the federal government.

Now what you have to understand is the kind of audits I'm talking about these are not what a private corporation would do with a rigorous accounting system. Essentially the audits we are required to do are mandated under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, and a few amendments thereafter. But it's the CFO Act of 1990 that's the driver.

And it basically was passed by Congress that required the inspector generals of each government department, not just the Pentagon, but NASA, health, education, welfare, all the other departments, interior department where the inspector general has to produce an audit each year. Saying, basically verifying that the money was spent on what Congress appropriated it for. Now that's not a management accounting audit. It's basically a checks and balances audit.

Well, the Pentagon has never passed an audit. They have 13 or 15, I forget the exact number, of major accounting categories. That each one has it's own audit. The only one of those categories that's ever been passed is the retirement account.

Now under the CFO Act of 1990 they have to do this audit annually. Well, every year they do an audit and the inspector general would issue a report saying we have to waive the audit requirements, because we can't balance the books. We can't tell you how the money got spent.

Now what they do is try to track transactions. And in one of the last audits that was done the transactions were like… there were like $7 trillion in transactions. And they couldn't account for about four trillion of those transactions. Two trillion were unaccountable and two trillion they didn't do, and they accounted for two trillion.”

Bill Moyer's Journal

CONCLUSION:

The material here is submitted on its own merits. Consider it carefully as the Pentagon consumes enormous amounts of US disposable tax revenue and our national debt exceeds $37 Trillion.  National Debt Clock

Ask yourself if there are other alternatives for the future of our country, to include statesmanship, international economic cooperation and de-weaponizing efforts among great nations. 

Human Suffering, War Profiteering, A $1 Trillion 2025 Military Budget And Irony Supporting Both Sides In Gaza

"THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT” (POGO) ‘The Bunker‘ By Mark Thompson

Pentagon rolls out a proposed 2025 budget nearing $1 trillion; senators call for probe alleging “war profiteering”; the U.S. finds itself supporting both sides in Gaza fight; and more.

This is what happens when you have too much money. The Pentagon’s post-9/11 cash gusher “hasn’t forced us to make the hard choices,” Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2011. “It hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point or deciding, in a very turbulent world, what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do."

__________________________________________________________________________

“DEFENSE DOLLARS

Military spending remains on auto-pilot

Even as 40% of Americans want the U.S. to step back from solving the world’s conflicts, the Pentagon is marching smartly ahead, seeking a nearly $1 trillion budget for 2025. The Defense Department rolled out next year’s request March 11, proposing $849.8 billion for the Pentagon and $45.5 billion more for military expenditures — like nuclear warheads — handled by other government agencies. That totals $895.2 billion, basically freezing defense spending because of a deal struck last year between the White House and Congress to avoid a government default.

But if history is any guide, Congress will pile on additional tens of billions of dollars using various forms of fiscal flimflammery. The same day the Pentagon unveiled its budget, in fact, the government’s intel chiefs held their annual threatfest on Capitol Hill to justify more spending. Preoccupied and uncertain people, and governments, unsure of their own place in the world, tend to double down on the status quo.

It’s small wonder many Americans feel tuckered out when it comes to the front lines. Just over 20 years ago, President Bush the Younger warned us of dire consequences unless we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Eight trillion dollars, 7,053 U.S. troop lives, and more than 400,000 civilian lives later, there’s scant evidence that the investment was worth it.

This isn’t just a Republican issue. Over the past two years, the Biden administration has allocated $111 billion in military and other aid to Ukraine. In fact, there’s $60 billion more snared on Capitol Hill because of GOP doubts it will make much difference in that war’s bloody stalemate following Russia’s 2022 invasion. The White House also wants $14 billion sent to Israel to help in its war in Gaza. The U.S. provides Israel with about $3.3 billion a year in military aid; since 1946 it has given Israel nearly $300 billion in aid, including more than $200 billion for its military.

The good thing about these two conflicts, jingoistically speaking, is that there are no U.S. combat boots on the ground in either Ukraine or Gaza. The bad news, taxpayer-wise, is that American wallets are Waist Deep in the Big Muddy. And with close to another trillion dollars slated to fuel the U.S. military next year, it’s a safe bet we’re going to get deeper and muddier.

TRUMAN 2.0

Six senators call for panel to probe “war profiteering”

The U.S. keeps spending more on its military and getting less — fewer troops, fewer tanks, fewer ships, and fewer planes. Surely some of that is because the hardware is becoming more complex. But a half-dozen progressive senators say defense-contractor greed is also driving the less-bang-for-the-buckU.S. Military.

They cite recent stock buybacks by Lockheed and RTX as evidence that top U.S. defense contractors are being paid too much. “There’s a name for all this: war profiteering,” they said, adding “that defense contractors routinely overcharge the Pentagon by nearly 40% to 50%, lining their pockets at taxpayer expense.” The March 4 letter(PDF) was sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) by Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). They asked him to recreate World War II’s so-called Truman Committee to probe Pentagon contractor profits.

That panel, officially known as the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, was led by then-Senator Harry Truman (D-MO). “Where there has been so much haste in the expenditure of such enormous sums there are bound to be leaks and mistakes of judgment,” Truman said in 1941. “Many people believe in both patriotism and profits, but sometimes, unfortunately, profits come first with them.” Truman estimated his panel, in operation for seven years, cost $1 million and saved taxpayers $15 billion.

That’s nearly $200 billion in today’s dollars.

BOTH SIDES NOW

A Pentagon paradox in the Middle East

As the Defense Department seeks to spend nearly $1 trillion next year (it’s well past that, actually, once you add in the nearly $400 billion spent annually on veterans), it finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. The old saying was that “the U.S. is in an arms race with itself,” seeing as the Pentagon has been pushing for ever-more advanced armaments to leapfrog what it’s already got in its arsenal (along with a sprinkling of bogeyman pixie dust, of course). But the war in Gaza finds the U.S. on both sides of the conflict: bombs for the Israelis, and box lunches for those they’re bombing.

Washington has quietly approved more than 100 weapons sales to Israel since it invaded Gaza, largely financed by the more than $3 billion in annual aid the U.S. gives to Israel. At the same time, the U.S. Is airdropping tens of thousands of meals to feed starving Palestinians in the Gaza strip and plans to build a temporary port to try to avert a famine. “We are airdropping food to famine-stricken Gaza today and supplying bombs for Israel to drop on devastated Gaza tomorrow,” Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) said March 5. Hamas attacked Israel last October, killing more than 1,100 Israelis. Israel has responded with barrages that Hamas health authorities say have killed more than 30,000 Gazans, despite repeated pleas from the Biden administration that Israel do more to protect civilians in Gaza.

This is what happens when you have too much money. The Pentagon’s post-9/11 cash gusher “hasn’t forced us to make the hard choices,” Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2011. “It hasn’t forced us to limit ourselves and get to a point or deciding, in a very turbulent world, what we’re going to do and what we’re not going to do.” Thirteen years later, unfortunately, the U.S. has yet to sit itself down and have that discussion.”

https://www.pogo.org/newsletters/the-bunker/the-bunker-closing-in-on-1-trillion

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Mark Thompson has been covering U.S. national security for four decades, including from 1994 to 2016 as senior correspondent and deputy Washington bureau chief at TIME Magazine.Mark worked at TIME from 1994 to 2016. Before that, he covered military affairs for the late Knight-Ridder Newspapers (including the Detroit Free Press, the Miami Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the San Jose Mercury-News) for eight years.Prior to Knight-Ridder, Mark reported from Washington for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for seven years. During that time, he and his paper were awarded the 1985 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for a series of articles on an uncorrected design flaw aboard Fort Worth-built Bell helicopters that had killed nearly 250 U.S. servicemen.